ORDER : 1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash FIR No.58/2016 dated 01.02.2016 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur (North) for the offences under Section 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC . 2. It is stated that one agreement dated 28.11.2011 was executed between Peru S/o Balia, Narayan, Gopal, Sukhram, Choti Lal, Ladu Ram all Sons of Late Shri Jeevan, Lala Ram, Budharam, Ramnath, Dalu Ram, Birdi Chand all Sons of Late Shri Chouthu, Smt. Ratni Devi W/o Late Shri Tejram, Ganesh, Seduram, Suresh, Kamal all Sons of Shri Tejram, Kalu Dattak Son of Late Shri Rampal in favour of Smt. Rekha Bansal (complainant) in order to sell 7/8 undivided share of land bearing Khasra Nos. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707, 6708, 6703 total measuring 1.02 hectare and Khasra Nos. 6718 & 3238 total measuring 0.14 hectare situated at Village Amer (Chopra Ki Dhani), Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 3. As per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 28.11.2011, entire family tree as well as particulars of different Khatedars as well as their descendants were given in detail and it was agreed between the parties that the land shall be sold for consideration or Rs.45,50,000/- per bigah. As per petitioners, total sale consideration as per the agreement was Rs.2,45,00,000/-. Out of such sale consideration decided between the parties, Rs.33,00,000/- was given in advance and the remaining was to be paid before 28th April, 2012. As per the petitioners, when the proposed purchasers/complainant did not make payment of remaining sale consideration, one legal notice dated 18.12.2015 was issued by petitioner No.1 through his counsel mentioning therein that the terms and conditions where agreement dated 28.11.2011 has been violated by the complainant and the remaining sale consideration has not been paid, therefore, in view of the fact that time was essence of the agreement, on account of non-payment of remaining sale consideration, agreement dated 28.11.2011 has been terminated. Reply to the notice was also given by the complainant and thereafter, in retaliation of the cancellation of agreement, impugned FIR No.58/2016 was lodged by the complainant on 01.02.2016. 4. Reply to the notice was also given by the complainant and thereafter, in retaliation of the cancellation of agreement, impugned FIR No.58/2016 was lodged by the complainant on 01.02.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that bare perusal of the contents of FIR would not reveal essential ingredients which are sufficient to infer commission of any offence under Section 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC . It is submitted that part of the sale consideration, which was accepted by the petitioners cannot be said to be an entrustment by the complainant with the petitioners, nor are there allegations that right from the inception, the agreement was executed with dishonest intention by inducing the complainant to enter into agreement so as to cause was undue loss to the complainant and undue gain to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the best, the complainant can claim breach of contract, for which he has got remedies in civil law and the dispute cannot be criminalized only on account of the fact that the agreement has been cancelled. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that most of the persons, who executed agreement dated 28.11.2011 have sold their respective share in the land by way of executing sale deed in favour of the complainant but it was not done dishonestly by the petitioners, therefore, it is clear that cheating has been done in the instant case. It is further submitted that the share of the petitioners was not clear as the petitioner No.1 himself has filed one civil suit seeking division of the property, therefore, it is apparent that without there being crystallization of his rights in respect of land in question, land was sold by the petitioners to complainant and thus, the agreement in question has clearly been fabricated by mentioning wrong facts inducing the complainant to enter into agreement with the petitioners and since in the meanwhile, rates of the land in question has risen considerably, the notice for cancellation of agreement was also given with criminal intent. Hence, she prays for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners. 7. Hence, she prays for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder submitted that the reason for filing civil suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction was that, the complainant somehow persuaded other co-sharers to execute the sale deed of their respective share, and only on the basis of sale deeds executed by other persons, she was in the process of selling the land of the petitioners also, whereas no sale deed whatsoever was executed by the petitioners. Hence, it cannot be said that merely filing of the suit can be inferred as absence of any crystallized rights of the petitioners in the land in question. 8. It is informed that during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner No.2 has expired. Hence, the proceedings against him stands abated. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is an undisputed fact that agreement dated 28.11.2011 has been executed between the accused-petitioners and the complainant; and pursuant to such agreement, transaction of advance payment of consideration has also taken place. It is also an admitted fact that the FIR has been lodged only after receiving notice with regard to cancellation of agreement. 11. Under these circumstances, it is evident that the root of lodging FIR by the complainant was cancellation of the agreement, for which remedy does not lie in criminal jurisdiction. In the FIR, no specific contents with regard to committing any forgery or dishonest intent right from the inception or even any illegal inducement or entrustment, are lacking in a manifest and apparent manner. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts where it can easily be gathered that the complainant was aggrieved only by breach of contract, criminalization of civil dispute by invoking the criminal jurisdiction is not permissible under law. 12. In the case of Randheer Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 932/2021 decided on 02.09.2021 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the Appellant is concerned. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the Appellant is concerned. is no whisper of how and in what manner, this Appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge sheet, relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to Whether a complaint discloses the ends of justice. criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above. 34. The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Only because a civil remedy is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. But as observed above, in this case, no criminal offence has been made out in the FIR read with the Charge-Sheet so far as this Appellant is concerned. The other accused Rajan Kumar has died. 35. The appeal is, thus, allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings in Crime Case No.5973/2020 are quashed as against the Appellant." 13. In the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. The other accused Rajan Kumar has died. 35. The appeal is, thus, allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings in Crime Case No.5973/2020 are quashed as against the Appellant." 13. In the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 1285/2021 decided on 26.10.2021 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while framing a specific point of consideration as to whether sale of excess share, even if made amounts to breach of contract or not; as well as the dispute between the parties narrating the same to be of civil nature can be made a basis for lodging of FIR or not; while discussing all the earlier judgments including in the case of Randheer Singh (supra) has held has under:- "41. Having considered the relevant arguments of the parties and decisions of this court we are of the considered view that existence of dishonest or fraudulent intention has not been made out against the Appellants. Though the instant dispute certainly involves determination of issues which are of civil nature, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 has even instituted multiple civil suits, one can by no means stretch the dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a criminal colour. As has been rightly emphasised upon by this court, by way of an observation rendered in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. as under :- "14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law." 42. It was also observed:- "13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors....There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors....There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged." 43. On an earlier occasion, in case of G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of UP and Ors. this Court has also observed:- "8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 45. Applying this dictum to the instant factual matrix, it can be safely concluded that the present case clearly falls within the ambit of first, third and fifth category of the seven categories enlisted in the above said judgment. The case therefore warrants intervention by this Court, and the High Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the Appellants under section 482 CrPC, We find that there has been attempt to stretch the contours of a civil dispute and thereby essentially impart a criminal color to it. 46. Recently, this Court in case of Randheer Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. has again reiterated the long standing principle that criminal proceedings must not be used as instruments of harassment. The court observed as under:- "33..... There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The court observed as under:- "33..... There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or hot depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above." 47. Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety." 14. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "(102). In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 15. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and after discussion of the facts as well as perusing the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is quite clear that the dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature and the FIR has been lodged by the complainant with ulterior motive in retaliation of cancellation of agreement. Therefore, under these circumstances, in case, the petitioners are allowed to be prosecuted pursuant to impugned FIR, same would cause abuse of process of law. Therefore, under these circumstances, in case, the petitioners are allowed to be prosecuted pursuant to impugned FIR, same would cause abuse of process of law. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law and thereby, quash and set aside FIR No.58/2016 dated 01.02.2016 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur (North) along with all subsequent proceedings. 16. Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.